SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES) Transportation-Communication Employees Union
TO ) and
DISPUTE:) Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company
QUESTIONS 1. Due to his position being abolished, J. L, Hearn, in
AT ISSUE: order to retain his protected employee status, was
forced to displace on a position requiring a change in
residence. Did Carrier violate Article III, Section 1
when it refused to allow him moving expenses and five
days' pay in making transfer to his new position?
2. Does Article IV, Section 1 apply with respect to an
employee who is forced to vacate his regularly assigned
position by reason of its abolishment and thus is forced
to displace on a lower rated position and/or accept a
place on the extra list?
OPINION The facts are not in dispute. Carrier abolished Hearn's
OF BOARD: regular position. He exercised his seniority and displaced
another employee in his seniority district. This is neither
a technological, organizational nor operational change within the meaning
and intent of Section 1 of Article III of the February 7, 1965 Mediation
Agreement. Since the change is neither tdchnological, organizational nor
operational, no moving expenses are allowable. This is in accordance with
the Interpretations of November 24, 1965 of said Article III.
It is stipulated on the record that the claimant should be
compensated in compliance with Article IV, Section 1, and that the request
for five days' pay in making the transfer is withdrawn.
AWARD
The answer to Question 1 is that the Carrier did not
violate Article III, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement and that, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to moving expenses
for the reasons set forth in the Opinion,
No answer to Question 2 is required in view of the stipulation also set forth in the Opinion.
REFEREES:
%V
~ W' /..f.·...r. ,
'\
- Continued -
Award No.
VANIV
Case No. TCU-9-SE
p
f\ REFEREES: - Co inued
r
Washington, D. C. - December 19, 1967